BHL v BHM: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Custody, Care and Control and Access Dispute
In BHL v BHM, the Singapore High Court addressed ancillary matters following a divorce, including custody, care and control of the children, access, maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets. The court granted joint custody to both parents, with care and control to the wife, and specified access arrangements for the husband. The matrimonial property in Singapore was divided 60:40 in favor of the wife, while the property in India was to be sold and divided equally after deducting certain repayments to the wife. The court also ordered maintenance payments for the wife and children. The decision was made by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J on April 29, 2013.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Orders made for joint custody, asset division, and maintenance for wife and children.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning division of matrimonial assets, custody, care and control and access, and maintenance following a divorce. Orders made for asset division and child maintenance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gill Carrie Kaur | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Kamalam d/o S V Suppiah | Guna & Associates |
4. Facts
- The parties were married in India on March 7, 2000, and have two children, a son born in February 2002 and a daughter born in July 2007.
- The wife commenced divorce proceedings on April 9, 2010, after separating from the husband in December 2009.
- The parties jointly owned a matrimonial property in Singapore and a property in India.
- The wife made greater direct financial contributions towards the matrimonial property, while the husband primarily paid for household expenses.
- The wife accused the husband of sexual promiscuity and viewing pornographic material, which he denied.
- The husband produced a medical report from his psychiatrist stating that he did not exhibit symptoms of hypersexuality.
- The parties held the matrimonial property as tenants in common, with the wife holding a 99% share and the husband holding a 1% share.
5. Formal Citations
- BHL v BHM, Divorce Suit No 1613 of 2010, [2013] SGHC 92
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married in India | |
| Son born | |
| Parties purchased property in India | |
| Daughter born | |
| Wife accused husband of having an affair | |
| Matrimonial property purchased | |
| Parties separated | |
| Wife commenced divorce proceedings | |
| Wife and children moved into the matrimonial property | |
| Interim maintenance order made | |
| Interim judgment granted | |
| Orders made regarding ancillary matters | |
| Orders made regarding ancillary matters | |
| Judgment Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court divided the matrimonial property 60:40 in favor of the wife, considering both direct and indirect contributions of both parties.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Direct financial contributions
- Indirect financial contributions
- Non-financial contributions
- Custody, Care and Control and Access
- Outcome: The court granted joint custody to both parents, with care and control to the wife, and specified access arrangements for the husband, prioritizing the welfare of the children.
- Category: Substantive
- Maintenance for Wife and Children
- Outcome: The court ordered the husband to pay $1.00 per month in maintenance to the wife and $4,000 per month in maintenance for the children.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Custody of children
- Care and control of children
- Access to children
- Division of matrimonial assets
- Maintenance for wife
- Maintenance for children
9. Cause of Actions
- Divorce
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Litigation
- Child Custody
- Matrimonial Assets Division
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 430 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody proceedings, taking into account moral, religious, and physical well-being. |
| CX v CY | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should promote joint parental responsibility in custody proceedings. |
| BG v BF | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a child should be allowed to interact with both parents as much as possible, and reasonable access should be granted unless there is convincing evidence that the parent is incapable of caring for the child. |
| Tay Ah Hoe (m.w.) v Kwek Lye Seng | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 120 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that denying a parent reasonable access requires convincing evidence of their inability to care for the child. |
| Yeo Gim Tong Michael v Tianzon Lolita | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that inter-spousal gifts are assets that go into the pool of matrimonial assets for division. |
| Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seow Kee | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 405 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that inter-spousal gifts are assets that go into the pool of matrimonial assets for division. |
| Ho Kiang Fah v Toh Buan | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 398 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Section 112 of the Women’s Charter is concerned with the personal rights (as distinct from proprietary rights) of the parties in relation to the matrimonial property. |
| TQ v TR and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even if there was an agreement between the parties, this would only constitute a factor to be taken into account in the division of matrimonial assets and would be subject to the overriding consideration of what is just and equitable in the circumstances. |
| AFS v AFU | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 275 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even if there was an agreement between the parties, this would only constitute a factor to be taken into account in the division of matrimonial assets and would be subject to the overriding consideration of what is just and equitable in the circumstances. |
| BCB v BCC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 324 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that indirect contributions of every stripe should be taken fully into account in the division of matrimonial assets. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Matrimonial assets
- Custody
- Care and control
- Access
- Maintenance
- Joint custody
- Tenants in common
- Direct financial contributions
- Indirect financial contributions
- Welfare of the children
15.2 Keywords
- Divorce
- Matrimonial Assets
- Child Custody
- Maintenance
- Singapore
- Family Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Division of Matrimonial Assets | 99 |
| Family Law | 98 |
| Divorce | 95 |
| Access to Children | 90 |
| Maintenance | 90 |
| Child Custody | 90 |
| Child Support | 90 |
| Care and Control | 90 |
| Children's Welfare | 85 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Divorce
- Ancillary Matters
- Matrimonial Assets
- Child Custody
- Maintenance